Jump to content

Schmucks?


nexus

Recommended Posts

Re: Schmucks?

 

I don't think anyone has mentioned this (and if someone has I'm sorry), but the 350-point CU characters are designed to be iconic or, perhaps more to the point here, as samples. They aren't necessarily designed to take out Dr. Destroyer as much as they are designed to show you how to make a character for the game. There is method to that madness.

 

As to 350 point characters generally, I have been playing for a while now in a campaign (which meets in fits and starts) that uses 125+125 characters and is designed to be inherently "low-level", essentially a DC:TAS style setting wiuth free (mundane) equipment. The bad-guys are appropriately powered (i.e. with point totals higher than the players if they are solo, point totals equal to the players if they are not) and we all have a good time.

 

I have recently been thinking about transitioning this campaign to a 350 game (updating the characters to maintain their backstory) and making things more "four color" just so that I can use more of the stock CU bad guys. I'm torn because these characters are fun as-is and I don't want to mess with the dynamic, but at the same time I'd like to use some of the cool CU bad guys as I don't have as much time as I once did to make villain characters. There are other reasons of course, but that is a pretty good practical one :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 621
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Schmucks?

 

There was no "in comparison to" implied in his statements that I saw. He said (and I can only presume" thinks) 350 point characters are weaklings since they can't handle the "real bad guys" (again' date=' his words not mine). That is why he chooses to start his players with more points. I also didn't name name since I didn't want to start some kind of lets bash Champsguy thread. I've got no problem with him but I don't agree with his apparent assesment of 350 point characters are "schmucks" which to means weaklings or useless.[/quote']

 

I look at the 5th Edition world and I say "Why hasn't Dr Destroyer taken over yet? Oh, it must be because Takofanes would stop him." The truth is, 350 point characters don't compete with the high-end villains. They are, bluntly, schmucks. There need to be heroes out there who can handle the real bad guys.

 

Sorry Nexus - my post was not intended as a knock on you or Champsguy but looking at it this morning it may have been taken that way. I bolded what I feel is a comparison to megavillains and saw this as the spirit of his post.

 

Now, I just need to catch up on 5 pages of posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

If your 350 point Superman can blow out the sun, he is powerful. ;)

 

If you want to put limits on what legal constructs you'll permit to allow him to do that, cool. On a personal note, I do that as well. However, I wouldn't claim that it was impossible to do something in a system just because I'd set personal conditions that prevented me from doing it.

 

It may not *technically* be impossible, but alot of those constructs are squicky, at best, if not outright illegal ( I'm pretty sure your not allowed to take a Base unless it actually *is* a Base ). And, in my mind, unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

I had to push to allow my GM to allow us 300 point characters as compared to 4ed 250 point characters in the champions game we are about to start. To top it off' date=' there is a 60 active point power limit on all offensive and defensive powers. Do I feel insecure about the fact that everyone in CU is more powerful than my character? Darn skippy I do. Actually, my character is a starting out superhero. Starting out a little weaker than others, but starting out just the same. There is some advantages to "growing into" your role as a galactic defender. I'm crossing my fingers for 5xp missions though. I don't want to remain at 300 for long.[/quote']

 

Is that 60 AP cap for starting characters or permanent??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

I don't think anyone has mentioned this (and if someone has I'm sorry), but the 350-point CU characters are designed to be iconic or, perhaps more to the point here, as samples. They aren't necessarily designed to take out Dr. Destroyer as much as they are designed to show you how to make a character for the game. There is method to that madness.

 

Again, thats not "iconic"; thats "archetypical."

 

An Icon would be a character that other characters look up to, which requires that said Icon have a history in the setting, hence experience. And since the phrase is "look up," not "look down," they really should be more powerful/competent/whatever than the heroes doing the looking up.

 

All told, though, I agree, the Champions aren't meant to take on Dr Destroyer. The problem is, we have yet to see the team that *is*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

Whilst I agree in principle I would be interested to see what you consider 'efficient' character design...for example in a charcter' date=' built on 350 points, that can take AND dish out 21/4d6 attacks. Maybe Haerandir would like to come in on this one....?[/quote']

 

Between sleep and work, I've fallen pretty far behind on this thread, but I think I could come up with something that meets those requirements and isn't too horribly abusive in other terms. It'll have to wait until I get home tonight, though.

 

Also, just for the sake of clarity, the character I was referencing (Empyrean was his name, if you're curious) couldn't consistently dish out and take 21 dice of damage. That represented his 'alpha strike' potential. He generally stuck to 15 - 17 dice. But I can't resist the challenge of building a character who could, now that it's been suggested...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

It may not *technically* be impossible' date=' but alot of those constructs are squicky, at best, if not outright illegal ( I'm pretty sure your not allowed to take a Base unless it actually *is* a Base ). And, in my mind, unnecessary.[/quote']

 

You don't need a base for the Solar Power Aid to Everything; That Aid is also a power found in the USPD, for what that's worth. A GM may or may not permit it, but it is legal and official. "Can" is not "Should", but that's not the same issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

I've played and GMed CHAMPIONS since 1983. To me, the idea that playing the game at any particular point value is right or wrong is kinda silly.

 

It used to be that characters were based on 250 pts. That worked okay. People had fun. Some people still play at those starting point levels and have fun. Cool.

 

These days, the default is 350 pts. That works okay. People have fun with it. Cool.

 

Some people do games with higher points. In my current campaign, characters are built on 600 pts plus 150 in Disads, more or less. People have fun.

 

The point is, there is no right or wrong way, so long as people are enjoying it.

 

I tend to like 350 better than 250, as that many points make it possible to play a more well-rounded character. You have points to buy skills without having to micro-tinker your powers with Limitations. 350 allows one to make very fun, playable versions of most of the basic comic archetypes. You can make a good flying brick. You can make a competent urban martial vigilante. You can make a pretty fast guy who climbs walls and ties people up in webs. You can make a guy in power armor, or a flying, caped spellcaster, or someone who can race the wind, or even a short guy with super-sharp claws and a bad attitude and have said characters catch the basic feel of the characters in the comics who inspired such characters. That doesn't mean 250 point guys suck, though. Just different design philosophy, and differnt preferences.

 

When I set up the "New Sentinels" game, the point was to play characters at roughly the Avengers/JLA level. I think it does a pretty good job of that, without relying too much on liberal use of "stopsign" Advantages such as Megascale, or potentially-broken ones such as Cumulative. We're having fun in the campaign - the players like playing it, and I'm having a blast running it. Can one do a game that is supposed to reflect the JLA or Avengers on fewer starting points? Sure. They might have to cut a few more points on character design, but that isn't a bad thing - only different, and even then only modestly so, because in order to reflect the power level of a JLA/Avengers game, I'm more lax on certain sorts of power framwork structures (special-effect-appropriate Skill VPPs, for example) than I would be if I was running a street-level campaign or a standard 350-pt campaign.

 

Most of the same people who play in the New Sentinels campaign are also starting up a 350-point campaign. The characters in that campaign aren't nearly as powerful as the Sentinels, but they sure don't suck, either. I'm looking forward to playing, and I think the same is true of everyone else. I'm betting it will be just as much fun as the Sentinels game, even at less than 1/2 the points. Not better, just different, and still good.

 

I do agree with those who point out that, for reasons of logical consistency, the established, canon CU could do with a few more powerful heroes. I think that's what Meta and some others are pointing out. Realistically, the Champions as written couldn't beat Eurostar at all, short of a) whomever played Eurostar was an idiot, and the Champions players relative strategic geniuses, or B) the best die-rolling luck eve on the Champs side, and the worst on Eurostar's side. But, really, so what? Some people don't use many of the established villains, particularly not the high-end ones. Others tone them down. Others have rightly noted that many of the high-end guys really are not that well-designed, and they're correct - with the same points, I could make Gravitar a lot tougher, I've done so with Menton, and I'm betting there are a lot of non-twinked 350-pointer characters out there who could take Gigaton 1/3 of the time. Still others would boost the Champions, or home-brew some powerful characters. Still others play in campaigns where 250-pt guys are incredibly powerful, because there aren't guys like Takofanes running around - and you know, in a world at all like reality, a 250-pt guy could indeed be pretty damn tough. in comparison to normal people. Now imagine how a 350-pointer could appear to the same normal people.

 

Different ways, all okay. People can have different perspectives and have them be okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

Again, thats not "iconic"; thats "archetypical."

 

An Icon would be a character that other characters look up to, which requires that said Icon have a history in the setting, hence experience. And since the phrase is "look up," not "look down," they really should be more powerful/competent/whatever than the heroes doing the looking up.

Actually the word Iconic has two meanings, only one of which is used in the manner you suggest.

 

1. Of, relating to, or having the character of an icon. (how you took it)

2. Having a conventional formulaic style.

 

The "formulaic style" is what I meant a representation of certain basic types archetypal is a fine alternative. My use was demonstrated by the use of the word "sample" immediately following. It would be silly to say that these characters are Icons in the sense of someone to look up to and was certainly not implied by the rest of the comment I made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

What it means to you. Words have different meanings for different people' date=' and even for the same people in different contexts.[/quote']

 

Actually, it pretty much means a variety of unflattering, insulting things. And none of them are appropriate to describing relative power levels.

 

Definitions of "schmuck", for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

It all depends on the tone of the game, and which kind of comics you want to emulate.

In a Titans game or classic X-men game sure - but what about JLA or Legion style games (or even a really solid Avengers line up). There is no way military hardware should be a threat to those teams. It just doesn't fit the tone. If the team is the worlds best, and standard military might could defeat them, then (aside from responce time) just send the military after the bad guys and let the supers stay home.

 

I'm not interested in simply emulating the comics -- there's an extreme variation in the quality of that source material. I really don't care to emulate the worst bits of comic book physics.

 

Also, response time is crucial. If the military response takes an hour to arrive, and the villains have completed their objective within 30 minutes...

 

Collateral damage is crucial. Sure, a squadron of Apaches firing a sustained salvo of super-busting IIR Hellfires could take out a megavillain, but that doesn't do much good if the megavillain is in a building full of innocents.

 

(I had a moment planned for a Champs game I was running many years ago, that we never got to, in which an A-10 was going to used to take out an escaping supermenace during a jailbreak from the campaign setting's "stronghold".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

fair enough--but what I'm pointing out is that it's not really a matter of building characters on X points' date=' then, since in all circumstances where the limits don't apply, that character will effectively be more powerful than the characters built on fewer total "active points". [/quote']

 

Which is, in fact, the original point I was trying to make, and WhammeWhamme has been supporting: That it's silly for people to obsess over 350 point characters being 'schmucks' just because they're 350 points and not 375, 400, 450, 500, 750 or 1000. The point total is only marginally relevant to the actual issue under discussion.

 

As for that actual "issue" (That the CU will fold up and explode unless Steve Long personally cranks out a number of NPC heroes exactly equal in quantity, quality and combat effectiveness as the number of arbitrarily-defined "megavillains" because the particular poster in question cannot conceive of any countervailing factors other than raw point totals of the published example characters... Horrors! Who will save us?!?!?!?), I find it laughable.

 

What's really sad is that the second someone publishes official writeups of the Justice Squadron (or any other 'high-end' hero team), these same people will crunch the numbers until they can 'prove' that Dr. Destroyer can defeat them, and continue moaning about the dearth of 'high-end' NPC heroes. If Hero Games should make the mistake of caving to their demands and publishing an honest-to-Superman UBERHERO capable of wiping the floor with Dr. Destroyer, Gravitar and Eurostar all at once with one hand tied behind his back, imagine the complaints (for once somewhat valid) we'll hear about how the very existence of that character invalidates all PC heroes. I'm sorry if

 

that sounds a little negative on my part, but this whole argument consists of whining for the sake of whining.

 

Edit: I'd like to add that none of that was really directed at megaplayboy, he just happened to be the one I was replying to when my Enraged went off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

Actually the word Iconic has two meanings, only one of which is used in the manner you suggest.

 

1. Of, relating to, or having the character of an icon. (how you took it)

2. Having a conventional formulaic style.

 

The "formulaic style" is what I meant a representation of certain basic types archetypal is a fine alternative. My use was demonstrated by the use of the word "sample" immediately following. It would be silly to say that these characters are Icons in the sense of someone to look up to and was certainly not implied by the rest of the comment I made.

 

Fair enough, but I think that with respect to comic books, only the second definition is common usage. When people here the word "icon," they don't think "character with a specific common schtick," they think "Superman, Batman, Spider-man, Captain America."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

Who said anything about equal numbers and capabilities of megaheroes to megavillains??

 

For those who haven't been paying attention, the NPC Hero Brigade has been calling for the existence of *teams* of heroes who can take on megavillains, one-two teams per megavillain, and at least not get themselves killed.

 

Thats one team of ~six heroes versus one villain. We want the heroes to be at least reasonably capable of driving the villain off without needing either a borrowed nuclear weapon or a Gift from the GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

Who said anything about equal numbers and capabilities of megaheroes to megavillains??

 

For those who haven't been paying attention, the NPC Hero Brigade has been calling for the existence of *teams* of heroes who can take on megavillains, one-two teams per megavillain, and at least not get themselves killed.

 

Thats one team of ~six heroes versus one villain. We want the heroes to be at least reasonably capable of driving the villain off without needing either a borrowed nuclear weapon or a Gift from the GM.

As one of the NPC Hero Brigade I'd much rather see one or two mega-teams (Sentinels and Justice Squadron) for the entire CU than "one-two teams per megavillain." I think those two teams are enough to deal with the infrequent Master Villain appearances. I'd rather see all the teams at varying power levels. Some at 350, some at 450, some at 550, etc. I don't think the world needs more than one 750+ team in it, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

As one of the NPC Hero Brigade I'd much rather see one or two mega-teams (Sentinels and Justice Squadron) for the entire CU than "one-two teams per megavillain." I think those two teams are enough to deal with the infrequent Master Villain appearances. I'd rather see all the teams at varying power levels. Some at 350' date=' some at 450, some at 550, etc. I don't think the world needs more than one 750+ team in it, in my opinion.[/quote']

 

If you go with the 1 in a Million demographic, you end up with just under 6,400 active supers world wide; if 2000 of those are on teams with an average of five members each, you get 400 teams. Assume that one half of those teams are in just the industrialized nations (guessing here that supers will get the hell out of poor countries if they get a chance), one team per US State seems reasonable. Not that DoJ could write up that many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

If you go with the 1 in a Million demographic' date=' you end up with just under 6,400 active supers world wide; if 2000 of those are on teams with an average of five members each, you get 400 teams. Assume that one half of those teams are in just the industrialized nations (guessing here that supers will get the hell out of poor countries if they get a chance), one team per US State seems reasonable. Not that DoJ could write up that many.[/quote']

From what's stated in Champions Universe only about 40%, or 2,400 individuals, are powerful enough to become costumed individuals. Then there is an additional 500-600 who are trained at teched for a total of about 3,000 world wide. CU also says that about 40% of those 3,000 are heroes. So you are looking at about 1,200 heroes around the globe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

For those who haven't been paying attention, the NPC Hero Brigade has been calling for the existence of *teams* of heroes who can take on megavillains, one-two teams per megavillain, and at least not get themselves killed.

 

Thats one team of ~six heroes versus one villain. We want the heroes to be at least reasonably capable of driving the villain off without needing either a borrowed nuclear weapon or a Gift from the GM.

 

I'd be happy with one or two teams who can deal with the megavillains.

 

How powerful should they be? Well, they don't have to be as powerful as the megavillains. You don't defeat megavillains by flying up to them and punching them in the face. At least, not until you've messed with them a bit.

 

They do, however, need to be able to cope with the megavillains' flunkies. 250-350 point characters would be stretched to do this.

 

Ultimately, megavillains can only be defeated through roleplaying. That's pretty much part of the definition. NPC heroes don't roleplay, but at least can be assumed to be doing it offstage if necessary.

 

I should point out that while I am one of the advocates of the possibility of building JLA/Avengers type characters on 350 points, I am actually saying _starting versions_ of these characters, not experienced versions. For example, the version of the Flash I would build would be the version that appeared in Showcase #4. He would be able to do what that character did, and thus be a faithful portrayal of the Flash, but he wouldn't be able to do many of the things that the Flash was later protrayed as doing.

 

Similarly, it is possible to create an accurate rendition of the Batman from Detective Comics #27 on 200 points. He can't do all the stuff the present day version of the character can do, but he is a faithful rendition of the Batman at a certain point in his career.

 

As for Thor and Daredevil, well, I doubt that my version of Daredevil would be able to deal with my version of Thor in combat. Then again, Thor doesn't have a whole lot of skills...

 

If you are doing faithful renditions of the characters on low point costs, their relative power levels should actually be maintained. If Daredevil can't hit harder than a tough human, that's all he should be able to do. If Thor can, well, he can. Of course, there are enough bugs in my designs that Thor would probably need to use an area-effect attack to hit DD, but once he did...

 

Back to the main point: what we need might not be NPC hero teams so much as NPC "space gods". That is, we have various powerful but inactive beings hanging around, who, if they are tracked down, cajoled, bribed and flattered by the PCs, might actually condescend to provide assistance in neutralising the Bad Guys. Wanambi Man might be a good canonical example. He probably just sits around in his interdimensional limbo, but if you find him, and ask very nicely, he might provide you with some useful assistance or information against Takofanes.

 

Similarly, going and hassling the Empyreans might be of some use in dealing with other threats. Or the Atlanteans, or the Perseids, or whoever...

 

The Big Bads don't try to conquer the world every month. When they do, it should be important. Fobbing the job of stopping them off on a bunch of faceless NPCs seems wrong.

 

You stop the Big Bads by roleplaying, not by combat. Trying to do it the other way around gets you a bunch of bruises, and doesn't work. And that's true whether you are built on 250 points or 2500...

 

But yes, we do need a team or two of megaheroes. Just Because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

From what's stated in Champions Universe only about 40%' date=' or 2,400 individuals, are powerful enough to become costumed individuals. Then there is an additional 500-600 who are trained at teched for a total of about 3,000 world wide. CU also says that about 40% of those 3,000 are heroes. So you are looking at about 1,200 heroes around the globe.[/quote']

 

Fair enough, and far fewer than I thought. So, let's put 5/6 of those guys into the industrialized world (assume they want to go where the money is, and leaves 100 odd Heroes to defend the rain forrest and the slums of Rio). That gives us only 1000 or so heroes to divide between Europe, North America, Japan, China and India. If the USA manages to steal 20% of those (a major chunk) we end up with 200 heroes. Put half of them into teams and we're talking 20 5 man teams around the country, enough to support a major betting industry. ;)

 

"Jack! Check the news! The New Jersey Devils are facing off against Eurostar!" "Damn! $20 on the Russian Steroid Dude!" "You're on!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

Fair enough, and far fewer than I thought. So, let's put 5/6 of those guys into the industrialized world (assume they want to go where the money is, and leaves 100 odd Heroes to defend the rain forrest and the slums of Rio). That gives us only 1000 or so heroes to divide between Europe, North America, Japan, China and India. If the USA manages to steal 20% of those (a major chunk) we end up with 200 heroes. Put half of them into teams and we're talking 20 5 man teams around the country, enough to support a major betting industry. ;)

 

"Jack! Check the news! The New Jersey Devils are facing off against Eurostar!" "Damn! $20 on the Russian Steroid Dude!" "You're on!"

From what I can make of the CU charts there are about 100 superheroes in the US. When you consider the teams and individuals currently in the CU you're already looking at some 60-70 heroes accounted for from that 100. That only leaves about 30-40 for everything else.

 

Edit to add: An estimated count from the Superheroes pdf shows about 110 heroes already working as individuals, teams, and for the government in the USA. Even if we assume another 50 I would doubt those heroes would all flock to teams. There is a great need for individual heroes scattered around the various 500,000+ populations cities in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

From what I can make of the CU charts there are about 100 superheroes in the US. When you consider the teams and individuals currently in the CU you're already looking at some 60-70 heroes accounted for from that 100. That only leaves about 30-40 for everything else.

 

Edit to add: An estimated count from the Superheroes pdf shows about 110 heroes already working as individuals, teams, and for the government in the USA. Even if we assume another 50 I would doubt those heroes would all flock to teams. There is a great need for individual heroes scattered around the various 500,000+ populations cities in the US.

 

Again, far fewer than I thought. Hermit's ides of an as-needed national team is looking better all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

one of the points would be I think that the npc heroteam and their exploits would be in the background because until they reach a certain point, a lot of the pc's adventures might be happening on a city or country based level. World saving stuff isn't their focus, and when it does become such, well, hey, to use an actual comic book continuity as an example, both the JSA and JLA exist in the same world and get regularly busy saving it from different things just fine without one overshadowing the other.

 

And if this gets into a "my characters aren't important and don't matter unless they're routinely saving the world every other week." I guess I'll say again, you know how many comic book superheroes and teams truck in just city and nation level adventures? World saving being a rare thing for them? And in a comic book world there'd be plenty of teams like that and that it can be entirely fun and rewarding to play them without demanding the entire world be their bitch when such is unreasonable? To me, again, this game exists to approximate feeling like playing in a comic book supers universe, in which there would be multiple teams of supers of wildly varying degree of power, and if, in which, I'm, say one of the incarnations of the Teen Titans, I expect the JLA to be the ones weekly saving the entire planet while I'm stopping New York from being exploded. Or if I'm some member of the Bat-family, focusing on keeping the person on the street being able to live a life free from fear and opression by local street crime. Or etc.

 

And on the every niggling thing comment... what, like Batman's gadgets, bases and wealth? Like Tom Strong's inventive genius and many notable henchmen and sidekicks, bases, gadgets, and wealth, besides his class 50 or so strength, crazy durability and other such things? Like Mr Terriffic's huge panoply of being a skilled expert and knowledgeable in nearly everything, while also being at somewhat above peak human physical condition, a supergenius, having various enhanced tech resources, and again.. bases, gadgets and wealth? Some things are details, and some things are "this is a routine part of the character". It's like Thor, and various god powers, at some point you just have to break down and go "It's Thor, this is what he does, this is what he should be able to do." Lots of characters have a pretty routine level of capacity you can pick out and observe them on, and that, in fact to actually be true to whatever their core theme is, that there are things they should just be capable of doing.

 

Whether one expresses this by giving points to a bunch of things, or hacking into 350 and custom ruling, both are better than just handwaving away "oh, well, details".

 

Though again, as I've said, such things matter to me, as I /do/ view a superhero rpg as existing to emulate the comics it takes the reason for it to exist from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schmucks?

 

As one of the NPC Hero Brigade I'd much rather see one or two mega-teams (Sentinels and Justice Squadron) for the entire CU than "one-two teams per megavillain." I think those two teams are enough to deal with the infrequent Master Villain appearances. I'd rather see all the teams at varying power levels. Some at 350' date=' some at 450, some at 550, etc. I don't think the world needs more than one 750+ team in it, in my opinion.[/quote']

 

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I meant 1-2 teams to take on a megavillain, not 1-2 teams per megavillain.

 

IOW, that the baddest of the bad megavillains require a teamup between the two most powerful hero teams to oppose a major push of theres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...